The study found that in Somerset County, 23 natural
gas extraction sites resulted in more than 111 acres of disturbance, including 3
miles of new roads and 1 mile of new pipelines. In Westmoreland County, 1,658 natural gas
extraction sites resulted in more than 2,651 acres of disturbance, including
over 278 miles of new roads and 17 miles
of new pipelines.

A spider web of natural gas infrastructure is being
spun across Pennsylvania.Biodiversity
is being impacted. How the face of Penn’s Woods will change and how the habitats
of its inhabitants – human and non-human - will fare in the coming decades is being
played out before our eyes.Will
industry and regulators ensure that our natural heritage will be safely passed to
future generations of Pennsylvanians?

Despite concerns about human health, there has been little
study of the impacts on habitats and biota. Taxa and guilds potentially
sensitive to HVHHF [high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing] impacts
include freshwater organisms (e.g., brook trout, freshwater mussels),
fragmentation-sensitive biota (e.g., forest-interior breeding birds, forest
orchids), and species with restricted geographic ranges (e.g., Wehrle's
salamander, tongue-tied minnow). Impacts are potentially serious due to the
rapid development of HVHHF over a large region.

Shale gas
has engendered a great deal of controversy, largely because of its impact on
human health, but effects on biological diversity and resources have scarcely
been addressed in the public debate. This study indicated a wide range of
potential impacts, some of which could be severe, including salinization of
soils and surface waters and fragmentation of forests. The degree of industrialization
of shale gas landscapes, and the 285,000 km² extent of the Marcellus and Utica shale gas region
alone, should require great caution regarding impacts on biodiversity.

Parks,
communities, and water sources rise to the top of places that should be off
limits: nearly half of voters say drilling should not be allowed on national
parks (48%), public lands near where people live (47%), and water sources
(46%). Only 10% do not choose any type of public lands to be off limits.

Voters reject
the idea that there must be a single-minded, “either/or” approach to public
lands. When explicitly given the opportunity to choose a third option, a
majority (55%) instead say the government should put conservation on equal
ground with drilling for oil and gas.

A large majority
(78%) of voters strongly favor using some of the money collected from oil and natural
gas drilling on public lands to repair damage caused by drilling to land, fish,
and wildlife habitat. I’ve
proposed something similar for Pennsylvania.

Western states voters are not alone in their collective
wisdom and common sense.A
September, 2011 poll found that a whopping 72 percent of Pennsylvania
voters oppose opening up more of our state forestland for gas drilling.

It’s clear that American voters support
balanced management and conservation of their public lands - balance that is an essential part of the industry's increasingly fragile social license to operate. Do our elected representatives, regulators, and the industry know and respect our views?

Monday, June 17, 2013

study by
the Federal
Emergency Management Agencyfinds that rising seas and increasingly severe
weather due to climate
disruption may increase areas in the U.S. that are prone to flooding by up 45
percent by the end of the century. Thirty percent of that increase is
due to population growth – but 70 percent is due to climate disruption.

Having
to insure twice as many properties would be a big deal for the NFIP. It
generally works like any other insurance program, using the premiums that
policy holders pay in each year to cover losses when they occur. But the
program has been walloped by major storms in the past decade.
The NFIP went $16 billion in debt on Hurricane Katrina and after
Sandy will be $25 billion in the hole, a debt it may be unable repay. The
report projects that the average loss on each insured property could increase
as much as 90 percent by 2100. If future storm victims aren't forced to eat
their losses, taxpayers may have to cover the difference.

The
FEMA study is based on the assumption that sea levels will go up by four feet
in the next 86 years. But a report released last year by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
noted that sea level rise could bemore
than six feet. Whether it's four feet or six feet, rising seas cause
shoreline erosion and recession, and create greater surge risk in the event of
major storms. The FEMA report also notes that flooding around rivers will
likely become worse in a warming world, due to changes in precipitation
frequency and intensity. Population growth, which causes increases in paved
areas and changes in runoff patterns and drainage systems, will affect the
amount of flooding from rivers, the FEMA report notes.

Climate change will likely make flood insurance much more expensive for the
federal government, but also for individual policyholders. The average price of policies would need to
increase by as much as 70 percent to offset projected losses.

Along with urgently and drastically cutting our emissions, we need to begin dealing with the reality - and the shared costs - of the climate-related threats we have already locked in. Investing in resiliency now to avoid future losses must become an urgent national priority. Do we as a nation have the capacity to prepare for the consequences our past energy choices and place ourselves firmly on a cleaner, safer, and more sustainable path for the future?

A Green thing

The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a Green thing that stands in the way. Some see Nature all Ridicule and Deformity...and some scarce see Nature at all. But to the eyes of the Man of Imagination, Nature is Imagination itself.

William Blake, English poet (1757-1827)

About Me

John is Director of the Center for Environment, Energy, and Economy and Lecturer in Sustainability at Harrisburg University of Science and Technology. He is a former Senior Fellow and current Advisory Board member at the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, and a consultant. He served as Secretary of the PA Department of Environmental Protection from Jan. 2015-May 2016, and as Secretary of the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources from April 2009-Jan. 2011. He is the only person in PA's history to serve as Secretary of both of the state's natural resource agencies. He also served as a two term Mayor of Hazleton, PA, and as an Alternate Federal Commissioner on the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.
John is a graduate of Bloomsburg University with a degree in economics, and holds a Master of Public Administration degree from Lehigh University.